|
This was actually pretty neat back in the wild west days of single page web apps.
Standard practice at the time was to assemble 'Web 2.0' apps using a combination of jQuery, duct tape, and hope. So seeing a language + framework combo (Cappuccino and Objective-J) that would let you construct your app's UI using OSX's Interface Builder and then write your application in something other than Ecmascript 3.0 was actually a breath of fresh air, even if it seems a bit crazy now.
And I still wonder if they were onto something here. I still like 280Slides better than Google Slides and PowerPoint Online now, more than a decade later.
FWIW, SproutCore was another framework that aimed to do kind of the same thing but using plain JS. In some ways, it was a progenitor of things like Angular and I still like some aspects of it more than Angular and React.
Heck, I would actually love a modern take on this that lets you build your UI with XCode/Interface builder, then write your code in Swift and compile it all down to WASM. I think there are tools that already let you do something similar using XAML and C# compiled to WASM.
|
|
|
|
|
So I wrote an app using .Net Framework (4.72), and published the article. There are fewer than 6 files to "publish" in the release folder.
Out of curiosity, I re-implemented the code with .Net 5 Core. There are 22 files, six runtime folders, and a refs folder. All told the binary footprint is over 10mb LARGER than with .Net framework.
I don't see the benefit of using .Net Core if it's going to consume that much more disk space.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
isn't the purpose of .net core to be able to run on any OS? I could be mistaken.
If so, a larger footprint is understandable, I guess, as there are more files needed to run on non-Windows Operating systems.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, no. You can't run .Net apps with UI's on Linux.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xamarin isn't desktop Linux.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. I would not know.
then don't use .net core if it gives you heartburn.
we use it all the time at work and we don't care about the extra files and app size. it's a very trivial thing, really.
|
|
|
|
|
Ya see, I'm old. When I started coding, using as little ram and disk space as possible was a real goal. I still believe that.
I've always had heartburn regarding disk footprint with regards to .Net (and the fact that most of that footprint was hidden in the Win32 folder). With Core, it now needs to be deployed with your app. It's essentially the same as docker containers - you don't have to worry about what version of .net the user has because you're essentially putting the .net dependencies into the container.
I have hundreds of projects on my hard drive. if I compiled them all for .net core, it would consume gigabytes more space than they do right now.
For me, it's not a trivial thing. Really.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I've been a developer for 30 years and I have exactly the same heartburn. I have to keep telling myself "Disk space is cheap now, memory is cheap now". I have to ignore the little voice telling me, "This machine is MASSIVELY faster than the machine I was working on 30 years ago - why does everything start and run so freaking slow?"
Recursion is for programmers who haven't blown enough stacks yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup.... it blows people's minds when I when I tell them one of our flagship products (of the early to mid 90s) had 0.000032GB of "disk space" (EEPROM) and even less RAM. And, by the way, it used a 0.012 GHz processor. And supported five serial ports. (But, of course, had no display, let alone a graphical one, no keyboard, no mouse....)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bingo! But while cross-platform capability is nice, those of us who only need to target Windows have to take an unfortunate hit. And it only gets worse if you decide to publish as standalone, which balloons a basic "hello world" app to an astonishing 65MiB. Granted, this is not comparable to a .NET Framework build for obvious reasons, but it's still a bit ridiculous. Even a trimmed version is still 25MiB, and this is literally just to print "Hello World!" to the console.
Not really complaining too much though, because I so enjoy using C# and .NET that this is a tradeoff I gladly make 
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but this is a standalone application that will run (or at least should) in every windows without having .Net Core or .Net Framework installed, because the exe is containing all the needed information to run.
Same 300 KB "hello world" need the 500+ Mb .Net Framework in the background to be executed.
If you are going to have a lot of apps in stand alone... then it is not worthy.
But there are constellations where it might be very usefull and I would not give a crap if the application is 10 times bigger, as long as it runs without having to install anything in the background and even more if it doesn't affect the performance
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
.NET Core is alarmingly finicky in how it's built as it defaults to a larger cross-platform "I don't need the .NET Framework" build instead of simply a native one as .NET Framework did.
Try and run
dotnet publish -r win-x64 --self-contained false -o bin/
Then check your bin folder. Should be far smaller with far less files with the limitation that it only runs on Windows.
For a small Linux-only build, you can use
dotnet publish -r linux-x64 --self-contained false -o bin/
Whilst this is smaller, you will now need the .NET 5 Framework (Not to be mistaken with the .NET Framework Framework) installed as you did with regular .NET Framework (One of the reasons your one is so much larger is that it bundles the entirety of the Framework in it as well as it assumes it's not natively installed)
-= Reelix =-
|
|
|
|
|
Asking because I'm not sure, does Core have the ability to compile to a single exe, where framework does not? If that's the case, that would be one advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
BDieser wrote: Asking because I'm not sure, does Core have the ability to compile to a single exe, where framework does not?
yes, but the exe is much bigger. See my post above.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
i don't know.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
It compiles and runs fine, but when I try to publish as self-contained single file, I get this:
Publish has encountered an error. We were unable to determine the cause of the error.
Core is worthless.
EDIT - when I set it to framework dependent single file, it "publishes" successfully, but I get still 5mb of deployable files.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP quoted: Publish has encountered an error. We were unable to determine the cause of the error.
I'm glad I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I read this. Who releases such shite?
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Who releases such shite?
Microsoft?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The point is, its way faster, supports newer C# versions, newer framework features, runs on more platforms and supports standalone builds, etc. Also in .NET 6 you will be able to make AOT builds for all platforms.
If 10mb is an issue on a Windows PC you're worrying about the wrong things.
Also you can run IL trimmers in .NET 5.
<publishtrimmed>true
Trimming options - .NET | Microsoft Docs[^]
|
|
|
|
|
zezba9000 wrote: supports newer C# versions
Disingenuous claim - it *forces* you to use newer C# versions
zezba9000 wrote: newer framework features,
Disingenuous - it's still just .Net
zezba9000 wrote: runs on more platforms
Mostly false - it only runs on Windows if you add a UI. On linux, you have to run it through a glorified parser(the dotnet command). When you get right down to it, .Net isn't "native" on ANY platform.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I work with dotnet 5 every day and I cannot say that any of the claims here are actually factual. I run core 3.1 ( which is NOT exactly the same as dotnet 5 ) on a Raspberry PI with full UI. (UWP).
I Now run dotnet 5 as a portable web site ( runs on everything I've tried so far, with no real complications ).
As for size of the executable folder. Try this..... Just create a demo app using full framework ( web forms ) then create the demo Blazor app, now do a comparison using windows explorer-Properties.
Be aware if you used the ".ALL" nuget package in your conversion ( Huge legacy, Full Framework library ) and then select the option that automatically loads the whole Kestral web server into the runtime folder when you deploy you will get a lot of things you really don't need.
Actually the whole paradigm has changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7921483 wrote: web site
Web apps, by their very nature, areplatform agnostic. The UI is handled by the browser, NOT the "app" itself. Desktop apps written with Core that have a UI are NOT cross platform. My claim stands.
Member 7921483 wrote: on a Raspberry PI with full UI. (UWP)
Is that a web app, or a desktop app?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Your "feelings" don't effect the facts. Sorry.
I think .NET has been a mess for years with its runtime fragmentation and lack of AOT in any meaningful sense... but the reality is if you want to use new lang or framework features fundamentally based on CoreLib changes you need to update.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
